Idiosyncratic Americans

Two unexpected encounters during the final day of canvassing.

Out in the "burbs" with about 40 students, my longest discussion was with a woman who for several decades was on the city Democratic committee and had never voted for a Republican. She worked for Hillary in the primaries, but was going to vote for McCain until Palin was picked and the economy started collapsing.

I wanted to know what motivated this. It wasn't sexism; she didn't seem to think that Hillary was particularly mistreated. It wasn't conservative ideological leanings; she's an old-fashioned labour liberal, who still bemoans the US Steel plant closing and the couple next door that doesn't own cars from Detroit. But she was leaning toward McCain until Palin. I couldn't wrap my head around it.

I then asked her if she had any concerns about Obama. "Well, they'd riot if he loses." "Who's they?" I asked. "The blacks. See, you're young. You don't remember when they were burning the cities down. They almost destroyed Philly, and if he loses they'll do it again." So why was she still leaning toward Obama? "The economy, of course. That Palin woman. But mostly, I realise that if he wins, they won't riot at all."

Whatever happened to optimism?

Later, I knocked on a door in Philadelphia and when a man opened it the first thing I saw was his hand, tattooed with a swastika and a skull on the back. I was bracing for a short and ugly conversation, and, to be perfectly honest, I was scared. But he saw the Obama button and his face just lit up as he told me how great it was that I was out there, how much America needed a change after eight years of Republican rule and that he would be on his way to vote soon.

This definitely makes up for the kid who screamed at me calling me a traitor to my face.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Stephen Hawking's enthusiasm for colonising space makes him almost as bad as Trump

The physicist's inistence on mankind's expansion risks making him a handmaiden of inequality.

“Spreading out may be the only thing that saves us from ourselves,” Stephen Hawking has warned. And he’s not just talking about surviving the UK's recent run of record breaking heat. If humanity doesn’t start sending people to Mars soon, then in a few hundred years he says we can all expect to be kaput; there just isn’t enough space for us all.

The theoretical physicist gave his address to the glittering Starmus Festival of science and arts in Norway. According to the BBC, he argued that climate change and the depletion of natural resources help make space travel essential. With this in mind, he would like to see a mission to Mars by 2025 and a new lunar base within 30 years.

He even took a swipe at Donald Trump: “I am not denying the importance of fighting climate change and global warming, unlike Donald Trump, who may just have taken the most serious, and wrong, decision on climate change this world has seen.”

Yet there are striking similarities between Hawking's statement and the President's bombast. For one thing there was the context in which it was made - an address to a festival dripping with conspicuous consumption, where 18 carat gold OMEGA watches were dished out as prizes.

More importantly there's the inescapable reality that space colonisation is an inherently elitist affair: under Trump you may be able to pay your way out of earthly catastrophe, while for Elon Musk, brawn could be a deciding advantage, given he wants his early settlers on Mars to be able to dredge up buried ice.

Whichever way you divide it up, it is unlikely that everyone will be able to RightMove their way to a less crowded galaxy. Hell, most people can’t even make it to Starmus itself (€800  for a full price ticket), where the line-up of speakers is overwhelmingly white and male.

So while this obsession with space travel has a certain nobility, it also risks elevating earthly inequalities to an interplanetary scale.

And although Hawking is right to call out Trump on climate change, the concern that space travel diverts money from saving earth's ecosystems still stands. 

In a context where the American government is upping NASA’s budget for manned space flights at the same time as it cuts funds for critical work observing the changes on earth, it is imperative that the wider science community stands up against this worrying trend.

Hawking's enthusiasm for colonising the solar system risks playing into the hands of the those who share the President destructive views on the climate, at the expense of the planet underneath us.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496